This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

To bring some facts (rather than opinion, speculation, and irony) back into play:

Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.

States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:

• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.

• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.

• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

That's right, you don't care. Because if you did, you couldn't make your argument. History in the USA does not indicate such.

Right, history in the USA.. one of the youngest nations in the world... compared to history in any other country where it's happened....

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

OK, but if the right to own guns is guaranteed then why do you keep claiming the right will be taken away? You have no evidence of this. You may have some isolated incidents due to circumstance but that's all.

Uh... have you not read anything I've said? WE've provided quite a few examples of citizenry being disarmed and denied their right to arms... Care to join the conversation?

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

Germany huh... HILTER, THE NAZIS!!! and yet you accuse me of attempted distraction?

... You sit here and say our history is nothing like any other nations, so we have nothing to worry about.. I give you an example of other nations that were like us.. then confiscating guns... gee.

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

So you'd like to adjust your argument now?

I'm trying to clarify your position.. I was a legal firearm owning citizen in the ghetto.

You cannot use the statistics of convicted felons owning firearms, as the laws that are pushed against firearms are only affecting law abiding citizens who could legally own them.

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

Getting acrimonious won't help your argument.
Where did I say this is what you should do? I believe I simply stated a fact. Your attempted strawman burned.

You presented a case where if I did nothing, chances are nothing would happen.

I asked you what gave you, or anyone else the right to decide how I respond to a situation that involves my life being in danger.

You don't have any of those rights, period.

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

In Arizona eh? Well, the other 49 states should do it then because Arizona is the nations leader in smart policy...

You should look up Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws... Then come on back to the plate.

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

Not to mention that you misunderstood my question. Do you think the woman who brutally attacked my wife's friend would have used a gun if she'd had one handy? Obviously she is prone to violent outbursts and her vicinity to her children and onlookers didn't seem to deter her from extreme violent behavior.

What's your point? She could have RUN your stupid friend over for stopping and engaging the woman in the first place.

Should we go about limiting access to cars?

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

Another strawman... actually I acknowledged that an armed citizenry may well be a factor in decreasing crime. But the caveat I posted was that other gun related incidents will rise. Another strawman in flames!

Not to mention that you have no way of knowing whether it was your gun or your presence as a witness that deterred this guy. You certainly could draw my conclusion as easily as yours, especially since you clearly stated "I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen." Let's hear the recording of the police interview where the guy tells us why he didn't attack them...

I'm not even sure if you would have been legally justified since you weren't being attacked and the attacker didn't have a gun... what's the law in your particular state?

I will let you know what he says when he's prosecuted for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.. (the club, and his car).

Again, look up castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

Originally Posted by Slippery Slope

OK, I'll look into it... list those states.

Thats your job. Get busy.

I will not indulge you on an axiom.

Ah.. Can't support your position, eh? Color me surprised.
Prove that you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun, or admit you cannot.

Then we'd have 3 motherless children and a dead woman who probably only needed some anger management counseling.

How is this necessarily so?
Is killing your assailant the ONLY way to use a gun to effectively defend yourself?

We've manage to draw out a argument over multiple pages, cause this person is either ignorant, or completely and utterly dishonest.

I'm done until he can introduce something other than "I think there will be more violence if there is more guns!" or until he actually refutes my point of guns historically being confiscated after registration.

George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

We've manage to draw out a argument over multiple pages, cause this person is either ignorant, or completely and utterly dishonest.

I'm done until he can introduce something other than "I think there will be more violence if there is more guns!" or until he actually refutes my point of guns historically being confiscated after registration.

Seems like our government used to be all about the things that helped us. Guns. Hemp. But now they try to make them go away. Back when they first banned hemp they first tricked the farmers here in America by making them get it weighed and government stamped. But then they just seized it all.

I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

I love some of the ideas they have:
-The only way to use a gun is to kill something with it.
-The only way to use a gun to defend yourself is to kill someone.
-An 'assault weapon' is not capable of firing single shots
-'Assault weapon' and assault rifle are interchangeable terms
-'Aassault weapons' are far more powerful than 'standard' weapons.
-'Assault weapons' are necessarily inaccurate and only suitable for 'spray fire'
-Penetrating body armor is a herculean task
-A polceman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgement and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen

Hmm. This might make a good poll!
Question for the anti-gun crowd: Which of these things are true?

Re: Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

Originally Posted by stevenb

Right, history in the USA.. one of the youngest nations in the world... compared to history in any other country where it's happened....

Right, one of the youngest and most powerful. There is no way we could ever get this powerful in such a short period of time... historically speaking, therefore it must not be true, right? Because history provides us with examples of how long it generally take for a nation to dominate the world. Unless you'd like to admit that this country is distinctly unique and does not follow most of the "rules" of history.

Uh... have you not read anything I've said? WE've provided quite a few examples of citizenry being disarmed and denied their right to arms... Care to join the conversation?

But nothing that any intelligent person would claim comes anywhere near disarming a state let alone the entire country. You've provided meager examples of personal our situational circumstances. Hardly a case for the "they're gonna take away all our guns" ferver your side likes to gin up. It's simply not true.

... You sit here and say our history is nothing like any other nations, so we have nothing to worry about.. I give you an example of other nations that were like us.. then confiscating guns... gee.

I adamantly disagree with your comparison of the USA and 1930s germany.

I'm trying to clarify your position.. I was a legal firearm owning citizen in the ghetto.

No you're not, you were claiming I was obfuscating.

You cannot use the statistics of convicted felons owning firearms, as the laws that are pushed against firearms are only affecting law abiding citizens who could legally own them.

You cannot use the statistics of CCW permit holders as your basis for how things would be if everyone had pistol on their belt. Seems like it was that way once... I wonder what happened?

You presented a case where if I did nothing, chances are nothing would happen.

I asked you what gave you, or anyone else the right to decide how I respond to a situation that involves my life being in danger.

You don't have any of those rights, period.

I proffered the question. Nowhere did I tell you that you must respond in a certain fashion. Pull your panties out of the crack of your ass and rejoin the discussion.

You should look up Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws... Then come on back to the plate.

Maybe I will... although I have a sneaking suspicion I'll come back and correct your position.

What's your point? She could have RUN your stupid friend over for stopping and engaging the woman in the first place.

My point is that you don't have any right to tell dictate what she should have done (see your silly argument above). This is what happened and your "what if" scenario is worse than mine because there is no ambiguity about what happened. Not to mention that it appears you don't have a correct memory of the story I told in this very thread. Go reread it.

I will let you know what he says when he's prosecuted for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.. (the club, and his car).